arXiv:0909.4541v1 [hep-ph] 25 Sep 2009
CERN-PH-TH-2009-154 MCTP-09-48
Lectures on Higgs Boson Physics
in the Standard Model and Beyond
James D. Wells
CERN, Theoretical Physics, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland, and Physics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Abstract
These lectures focus on the structure of various Higgs boson theories. Topics in the first lectures include: mass generation in chiral theories, spontaneous symmetry breaking, neutrino masses, perturbative unitarity, vacuum stability, vacuum alignment, flavor changing neutral current solutions with multiple Higgs doublets, analysis of type I theory with Z2 symmetry, and rephasing symmetries. After an Essay on the Hierarchy Problem, additional topics are covered that more directly relate to naturalness of the electroweak theory. Emphasis is on their connection to Higgs boson physics. Topics in these later lectures include: supersymmetry, supersymmetric Higgs sector in the Runge basis, leading-order radiative corrections of supersymmetric light Higgs boson mass, theories of extra dimensions, and radion mixing with the Higgs boson in warped extra dimensions. And finally, one lecture is devoted to Higgs boson connections to the hidden sector.
British Universities Summer School in Theoretical Elementary Particle Physics (BUSSTEPP) Cambridge University 2008 and University of Liverpool 2009
Contents
1 The Problem of Mass in Chiral Gauge Theories 3
2 Standard Model Electroweak Theory 6
3 The Special Case of Neutrino Masses 11
4 Experimental Searches for the Standard Model Higgs Boson 13
5 Perturbative Unitarity 17
6 High Scale Perturbativity and Vacuum Stability 22
7 Adding Another Higgs Boson: Electroweak Symmetry Breaking 26 8 Adding Another Higgs Boson: Flavor Changing Neutral Currents 33
9 Essay on the Hierarchy Problem 37
10 Higgs Sector of Minimal Supersymmetry 41
11 Radion Mixing with the Higgs Boson in Warped Compact Space 53
1
The Problem of Mass in Chiral Gauge Theories
The fermions of the Standard Model and some of the gauge bosons have mass. This is a troublesome statement since gauge invariance appears to allow neither. Let us review the situation for gauge bosons and chiral fermions and introduce the Higgs mechanism that solves it. First, we illustrate the concepts with a massiveU(1) theory – spontaneously broken QED.
Gauge Boson Mass
The lagrangian of QED is
LQED=− 1 4FµνF µν+ ¯ψ(iγµD µ−m)ψ (1) where Dµ=∂µ+ieAµ (2)
and Q = −1 is the charge of the electron. This lagrangian respects the U(1) gauge symmetry
ψ → e−iα(x)ψ (3)
Aµ → Aµ+
1
e∂µα(x). (4)
Since QED is a vector-like theory – left-handed electrons have the same charge as right-handed electrons – an explicit mass term for the electron does not violate gauge invariance.
If we wish to give the photon a mass we may add to the lagrangian the mass term
Lmass=
m2
A
2 AµA
µ. (5)
However, this term is not gauge invariant since under a transformationAµAµbecomes
AµAµ→AµAµ+ 2 eA µ∂ µα+ 1 e2∂µα∂ µα (6)
This is not the right way to proceed if we wish to continue respecting the gauge symmetry. There is a satisfactory way to give mass to the photon while retaining the gauge symmetry. This is the Higgs mechanism, and the simplest way to implement it is via an elementary complex scalar particle that is charged under the symmetry and has a vacuum expectation value (vev) that is constant throughout all space and time. This is the Higgs boson field Φ.
Let us suppose that the photon in QED has a mass. To see how the Higgs boson implements the Higgs mechanism in a gauge invariant manner, we introduce the field Φ with charge q to the lagrangian:
L =LQED+ (DµΦ)∗(DµΦ)−V(Φ) (7)
where
V(Φ) =µ2|Φ|2+λ|Φ|4 (8) where it is assumed that λ >0 and µ2 <0.
Since Φ is a complex field we have the freedom to parametrize it as Φ = √1
2φ(x)e
iξ(x), (9)
where φ(x) and ξ(x) are real scalar fields. The scalar potential with this choice simplifies to V(Φ)→V(φ) = µ 2 2 φ 2 +λ 4φ 4 . (10)
Minimizing the scalar potential one finds
dV dφ φ=φ0 =µ2φ0+λφ30 = 0 =⇒ φ0 = r −µ2 λ . (11)
This vacuum expectation value of φ enables us to normalize the ξ field by ξ/φ0 such that its kinetic term is canonical at leading order of small fluctuation, legitimizing the parametrization of eq. (9). We can now choose the unitary gauge transformation,
α(x) = −ξ(x)/φ0, to make Φ real-valued everywhere. One finds that the complex scalar kinetic terms expand to
(DµΦ)∗(DµΦ)→ 1 2(∂µφ) 2+ 1 2e 2q2φ2A µAµ (12)
At the minimum of the potential hφi = φ0, so one can expand the field φ about its vev, φ=φ0+h, and identify the fluctuating degree of freedom hwith a propagating real scalar boson.
The Higgs boson mass and self-interactions are obtained by expanding the la-grangian about φ0. The result is
− LHiggs= m2 h 2 h 2+ µ′ 3!h 3+ η 4!h 4 (13)
where m2h = 2λφ20, µ′ = 3m 2 h φ0 , η = 6λ= 3m 2 h φ2 0 . (14)
The mass of the Higgs boson is not dictated by gauge couplings here, but rather by its self-interaction coupling λ and the vev.
The complex Higgs boson kinetic terms can be expanded to yield ∆L= 1 2e 2q2φ2 0AµAµ+e2q2hAµAµ+ 1 2e 2q2h2A µAµ. (15)
The first term is the mass of the photon, m2
A=e2q2φ20. A massive vector boson has a longitudinal degree of freedom, in addition to its two transverse degrees of freedom, which accounts for the degree of freedom lost by virtue of gauging away ξ(x). The second and third terms of eq. 15 set the strength of interaction of a single Higgs boson and two Higgs bosons to a pair of photons:
hAµAν Feynman rule : i2e2q2φ0gµν =i2
m2
A
φ0
(16)
hhAµAν Feynman rule : i2e2q2gµν =i2
m2
A
φ2 0
(17) after appropriate symmetry factors are included.
The general principles to retain from this discussion are first that massive gauge bosons can be accomplished in a gauge-invariant way through the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs boson that gets a vev breaks whatever symmetries it is charged under – the Higgs vev carries charge into the vacuum. And finally, the Higgs boson that gives mass to the gauge boson couples to it proportional to the gauge boson mass.
Chiral Fermion Masses
In quantum field theory a four-component fermion can be written in its chiral basis as
ψ = ψL
ψR
!
(18) where ψL,R are two-component chiral projection fermions. A mass term in quantum
field theory is equivalent to an interaction between the ψL and ψR components
In vectorlike QED, the ψL and ψR components have the same charge and a mass
term can simply be written down. However, let us now suppose that in our toy U(1) model, there exists a set of chiral fermions where the PLψ = ψL chiral projection
carries a different gauge charge than the PRψ = ψR chiral projection. In that case,
we cannot write down a simple mass term without explicitly breaking the gauge symmetry.
The resolution to this conundrum of masses for chiral fermions resides in the Higgs sector. If the Higgs boson has just the right charge, it can be utilized to give mass to the chiral fermions. For example, if the charges are Q[ψL] = 1, Q[ψR] = 1−q and
Q[Φ] =q we can form the gauge invariant combination
Lf =yψψL†ΦψR+c.c. (20)
whereyf is a dimensionless Yukawa coupling. Now expand the Higgs boson about its
vev, Ψ = (φ0+h)/ √ 2, and we find Lf =mψψL†ψR+ mψ φ0 hψL†ψR+c.c. (21) where mψ =yψφ0/ √ 2.
We have successfully generated a mass by virtue of the Yukawa interaction with the Higgs boson. That same Yukawa interaction gives rise to an interaction between the physical Higgs boson and the fermions:
hψψ¯ (Feynman rule) : imψ φ0
. (22)
Just as was the case with the gauge bosons, the generation of fermion masses by the Higgs boson leads to an interaction of the physical Higgs bosons with the fermion proportional to the fermion mass. As we will see in the Standard Model, this rigid connection between mass and interaction is what enables us to anticipate Higgs boson phenomenology with great precision as a function of the unknown Higgs boson mass.
2
Standard Model Electroweak Theory
The bosonic electroweak lagrangian is an SU(2)L×U(1)Y gauge invariant theory Lbos =|DµΦ|2−µ2|Φ|2−λ|Φ|4−
1 4BµνB
µν
where Φ is an electroweak doublet with Standard Model charges of (2,1/2) under
SU(2)L×U(1)Y (Y = +1/2). In our normalization electric charge is Q = T3+ Y2,
and the doublet field Φ can be written as two complex scalar component fields φ+ and φ0: Φ = φ + φ0 ! . (24)
The covariant derivative and field strength tensors are
DµΦ = ∂µ+ig τa 2 W a µ +ig′ Y 2Bµ Φ (25) Bµν = ∂µBν −∂νBµ (26) Wµνa = ∂µWνa−∂νWµa−gfabcWµbWνc (27)
The minimum of the potential does not occur at Φ = 0 if µ2 < 0. Instead, one finds that the minimum occurs at a non-zero value of Φ – its vacuum expectation value (vev) – which via a gauge transformation can always be written as
hΦi= √1 2 0 v ! where v ≡ r −µ2 λ . (28)
This vev carries hypercharge and weak charge into the vacuum, and what is left unbroken is electric charge. This result we anticipated in eq. (24) by defining a charge Q in terms of hypercharge and an eigenvalue of the SU(2) generatorT3, and then writing the field Φ in terms ofφ0 andφ+ of zero and positive +1 definite charge. Our symmetry breaking pattern is then simply SU(2)L×U(1)Y → U(1)Q. The
original group, SU(2)L ×U(1)Y, has a total of four generators and U(1)Q has one
generator. Thus, three generators are ‘broken’. Goldstone’s theorem [1] tells us that for every broken generator of a symmetry there must correspond a massless field. These three massless Goldstone bosons we can call φ1,2,3. We now can rewrite the full Higgs field Φ as
hΦi= √1 2 0 v ! +√1 2 φ1+iφ2 h+iφ3 ! (29) The fourth degree of freedom of Φ is the Standard Model Higgs boson h. It is a propagating degree of freedom. The other three states φ1,2,3 can all be absorbed as longitudinal components of three massive vector gauge bosons Z, W± which are
defined by Wµ± = √1 2 W (1) µ ∓iWµ(2) (30) Bµ = − g′Z µ+gAµ p g2+g′2 (31) Wµ(3) = gZpµ+g′Aµ g2+g′2 . (32)
It is convenient to define tanθW = g′/g. By measuring interactions of the gauge
bosons with fermions it has been determined experimentally that g = 0.65 and g′ = 0.35, and therefore sin2θW = 0.23.
After performing the redefinitions of the fields above, the kinetic terms for the
W±
µ, Zµ, Aµ will all be canonical. Expanding the Higgs field about the vacuum, the
contributions to the lagrangian involving Higgs boson interaction terms are
Lh int = m2WWµ+W−,µ+ m 2 Z 2 ZµZ µ 1 + h v 2 (33) −m 2 h 2 h 2 − 3!ξh3− η 4!h 4 (34) where m2W = 1 4g 2v2, m2 Z = 1 4(g 2+g′2)v2 = ⇒ m 2 W m2 Z = 1−sin2θW (35) m2h = 2λv2, ξ = 3m 2 h v , η = 6λ= 3m2 h v2 . (36)
From our knowledge of the gauge couplings, the value of the vevv can be determined from the masses of the gauge bosons: v ≃246 GeV.
The Feynman rules for Higgs boson interactions are
hhh : −i3m 2 h v (37) hhhh : −i3m 2 h v2 (38) hWµ+Wν− : i2m 2 W v g µν (39) hZµZν : i2 m2 Z v gµν (40) hhWµ+Wν− : i2m 2 W v2 gµν (41) hhZµZν : i2 m2 Z v2 gµν (42)
Fermion masses are also generated in the Standard Model through the Higgs boson vev, which in turn induces an interaction between the physical Higgs boson and the fermions. Let us start by looking atb quark interactions. The relevant lagrangian for couplings with the Higgs boson is
∆L =ybQ†LΦbR+c.c. where Q†L= (t†L b†L) (43)
where yb is the Yukawa coupling. The Higgs boson, after a suitable gauge
transfor-mation, can be written simply as Φ = √1 2 0 v+h ! (44) and the interaction lagrangian can be expanded to
∆L = ybQ†LΦbR+c.c.= yb √ 2(t † L b†L) 0 v+h ! bR+h.c. (45) = mb(b†RbL+b†LbR) 1 + h v =mb¯bb 1 + h v (46) where mb =ybv/ √
2 is the mass of the b quark.
The quantum numbers work out perfectly to allow this mass term. See Table 1 for the quantum numbers of the various fields under the Standard Model symmetries. Under SU(2) the interaction Q†LΦbR is invariant because 2×2×1 ∈ 1 contains a
singlet. And underU(1)Y hypercharge the interaction is invariant becauseYQ†
L+YΦ+ YbR = − 1 6 + 1 2 − 1
3 sums to zero. Thus, the interaction is invariant under all gauge groups, and we have found a suitable way to give mass to the bottom quark.
How does this work for giving mass to the top quark? Obviously, Q†LΦtR is not
invariant. However, we have the freedom to create the conjugate representation of Φ which still transforms as a 2 under SU(2) but switches sign under hypercharge: Φc =iσ2Φ∗. This implies that Y
Φc =−1 2 and Φc = √1 2 v+h 0 ! (47) when restricted to just the real physical Higgs field expansion about the vev. There-fore, it becomes clear thatytQ†LΦctR+c.c.is now invariant since theSU(2) invariance
remains2×2×1∈1andU(1)Y invariance follows fromYQ†
L+YΦ c+Yt R =− 1 6− 1 2+ 2 3 = 0. Similar to the b quark one obtains an expression for the mass and Higgs boson
Field SU(3) SU(2)L T3 Y2 Q=T3+ Y2 ga µ (gluons) 8 1 0 0 0 (W± µ, Wµ0) 1 3 (±1,0) 0 (±1,0) B0 µ 1 1 0 0 0 QL= uL dL ! 3 2 1 2 −12 ! 1 6 2 3 −13 ! uR 3 1 0 23 23 dR 3 1 0 −13 −13 EL= νL eL ! 1 2 1 2 −12 ! −12 0 −1 ! eR 1 1 0 −1 −1 Φ = φ + φ0 ! 1 2 1 2 −12 ! 1 2 1 0 ! Φc = φ0 φ− ! 1 2 1 2 −12 ! −12 0 −1 !
Table 1: Charges of Standard Model fields.
interaction: ∆L = ytQ†LΦ ct R+c.c.= yt √ 2(t † L b†L) v +h 0 ! tR+c.c. (48) = mt(t†RtL+t†LtR) 1 + h v =mt¯tt 1 + h v (49) where mt=ytv/ √
2 is the mass of the t quark.
The mass of the charged leptons follows in the same manner, yeEL†ΦeR+c.c., and
interactions with the Higgs boson result. In all cased the Feynman diagram for Higgs boson interactions with the fermions at leading order is
hf f¯ : imf
v . (50)
We see from this discussion several important points. First, the single Higgs boson of the Standard Model can give mass to all Standard Model states, even to the neutrinos as we will see in the next lecture. It did not have to be that way. It could have been that quantum numbers of the fermions did not enable just one Higgs
boson to give mass to everything. This is the Higgs boson miracle of the Standard Model. The second thing to keep in mind is that there is a direct connection between the Higgs boson giving mass to a particle and it interacting with that particle. We have seen that all interactions are directly proportional to a mass factor. This is why Higgs boson phenomenology is completely determined in the Standard Model as long as one assumes, or ultimately knows, the Higgs boson mass itself.
3
The Special Case of Neutrino Masses
For many years it was thought that neutrinos might be exactly massless. Although recent experiments have shown that this is not the case, the masses of neutrinos are extraordinarily light compared to other Standard Model fermions. In this section we discuss the basics of neutrino masses [2], with emphasis on how the Higgs boson plays a role.
Some physicists define the Standard Model without a right-handed neutrino. Thus, there is no opportunity to write down a Yukawa interaction of the left and right-handed neutrinos with the Higgs boson that gives neutrinos a mass. A higher-dimensional operator is needed,
Oν = λij Λ (E † iLH c)†(E† jLH c) (51)
whereEL = (νLeL) is theSU(2) doublet of left-handed neutrino and electron. Taking
into account the various flavors i= 1,2,3 results in a 3×3 mass matrix for neutrino masses
(mv)ij =λij
v2
Λ. (52)
Λ can be considered the cutoff of the Standard Model effective theory (see lecture 9), and the operator given by eq. (51) is the only gauge-invariant, Lorentz-invariant operator that one can write down at the next higher dimension (d = 5) in the theory. Thus, it is a satisfactory approach to neutrino physics, leading to an indication of new physics beyond the Standard Model at the scale Λ. For this reason, many view the existence of neutrino masses as a signal for physics beyond the Standard Model. The absolute value of neutrino masses has not been measured but the differences of mass squareds between various neutrino masses have been measured and range from about 10−5 to 10−2eV2 [2]. It is reasonable therefore to suppose that the largest neutrino mass in the theory should be around 0.1 eV. If we assume that this mass
scale is obtained using the natural value of λ ∼ 1 in eq. (52) and a large mass scale Λ, this sets the scale of the cutoff Λ to be
Λ ≃ (246 GeV) 2 0.1 eV ≃10
15GeV (53)
This is a very interesting scale, since it is within an order of magnitude of where the three gauge couplings of the Standard Model come closest to meeting, which may be an indication of grand unification. The scale Λ could then be connected to this Grand Unification scale.
Another approach to neutrino masses is to assume that there exists a right-handed neutrino νR. After all, there is no strong reason to banish this state, especially
since there is an adequate right-handed partner state to all the other fermions. Furthermore, if the above considerations are pointing to a grand unified theory, right-handed neutrinos are generally present in acceptable versions, such as SO(10) where all the fermions are in the 16 representation, including νR. Quantum number
considerations indicate that νR is a pure singlet under the Standard Model gauge
symmetries, and thus we have a complication in the neutrino mass sector beyond what we encountered for the other fermions of the theory. In particular, we are now able to add a Majorana mass term νT
Riσ2νR that is invariant all by itself without the
need of a Higgs boson. The full mass interactions available to the neutrino are now
Lν =yijEiL† Φ cν jR+ Mij 2 ν T iRiσ2νjR+c.c. (54)
The resulting 6×6 mass matrix in the {νL, νR}c basis is
mν = 0 mD mT D M ! (55) where M is the matrix of Majorana masses with values Mij taken straight from
eq. (54), and mD are the neutrino Dirac mass matrices taken from the Yukawa
interaction with the Higgs boson
(mD)ij =
yij √
2v. (56)
Consistent with effective field theory ideas, there is no reason why the Majorana mass matrix entries should be tied to the weak scale. They should be of order the cutoff scale of when the Standard Model is no longer considered complete. Therefore, it is reasonable and expected to assume thatMij entries are generically much greater
eigenvalues of O(M), and three light eigenvalues that, to leading order and good approximation, are eigenvalues of the 3×3 matrix
mlight
ν =−mTDM−1mD ∼y2
v2
M (57)
which is parametrically of the same form as eq. (52). This is expected since the light eigenvalues can be evaluated from the operators left over after integrating out the heavy right-handed neutrinos in the effective theory. That operator is simply eq. (51), where schematically Λ can be associated with the scale M and λ can be associated with y2.
Neutrino physics is a rich field with many implications for both electroweak symmetry breaking and mass scales well above the weak scale. Thus, it may be especially sensitive to specifics of the theory at the cutoff scale. Our desire here was to show how neutrinos get mass, consistent with Standard Model gauge symmetries and the principles of effective field theory. For more details about neutrino mass and mixing measurements and phenomenology, I recommend consulting reviews dedicated to that purpose [2, 3].
4
Experimental Searches for the Standard Model
Higgs Boson
As we emphasized in the last lecture, any particle that gets a mass through the Higgs boson vacuum expectation value will also couple to it proportional to its mass. The phenomenology of the Higgs boson is then completely determined once the mass of the Higgs boson itself is specified. It is important to emphasize that despite this rigidity in the phenomenology predictions, the Higgs boson is a speculative object. There is no direct proof of its existence, although the indirect proof based on compatibility with the data is tantalizing.
Experimental searches for the Higgs boson have been going on for several decades. It would be impossible to summarize the history, but recent developments, which are the most constraining and relevant, can be given. There are three experimental efforts relevant to this discussion. The first is the search by the LEP2 collaborations at the
e+e− collider at CERN. The second is the search by the D0 and CDF collaborations at the pp¯ collider at Fermilab. And the third is the precision electroweak analysis that utilizes the results of a great many experiments, including LEP, SLC, Tevatron, etc.
LEP2 ran their e+e− collider at energies as high as√s = 209 GeV center of mass. The primary search mode for the Higgs boson at this collider was e+e− → hZ. The would-be signal is clean and the barrier to discovery is primarily the limitation of the center of mass energy. Kinematically, the maximum Higgs boson mass that could be produced on-shell at the collider in this mode is mh = √s−mZ = 118 GeV. The
cross-section drops rather precipitously near this threshold so the sensitivity cannot be quite at the kinematic limit. Statistical fluctuations of candidate events can also affect the final lower limit if a signal is not established. Indeed, a signal was not established at LEP2 and the final mass limit arrived at by the collaborations [5] taking all into account is
mh <114.4 GeV excluded at 95% CL (LEP2). (58)
Tevatron has some sensitivity to the Higgs boson mainly through channels such as gg→h(∗) →W W where the W’s can decay leptonically on one side and into jets on the other, along with many other channels such as qq¯→ W h → lνb¯b, etc. The gluon partons that initiate the first set of events are of course plucked out of the p
and ¯phadrons. Running at√s= 1.96 TeV with 2.0−3.6 fb−1 of luminosity analysed at CDF and 0.9−4.2 fb−1 of luminosity analysed at D0, the combined effort [6] yields an exclusion of
160 GeV < mh <170 GeV excluded at 95% CL (D0/CDF). (59)
Lastly, we discuss the indirect limits on the Standard Model Higgs boson. Many observables are measured so precisely that a full quantum loop computation is needed to show compatibility of the collected measurements of experiment with the Standard Model theory. The collection of observables include Z decays measured at LEP1 and SLC, the W mass at LEP2 and Tevatron, the top mass at Tevatron, muon decay,
e+e− →hadrons data at many low-energy machines as input to the determination of
α(mZ), etc. The Higgs boson shows up in the quantum corrections in various ways.
It contributes to the self-energies of the W and Z bosons most especially. Thus, the self-consistency of all the experimental measurements depends on the assumed value of mh. For pedagogical reviews of the precision electroweak program see for example
refs. [7, 8].
To carry out a complete precision electroweak analysis is a very complicated subject with many uncertainties and correlations that have to be taken into account simultaneously. A somewhat complete picture of the significant effort required can be found in [9, 10, 11]. Unfortunately, we do not have time to go through all of the issues. Nevertheless, let us simplify the discussion to illustrate how the limit on the Higgs
boson is obtained. Let us approximate the situation by saying that all parameters of the Standard Model lagrangian besides the Higgs boson sector can be represented as {p}. The remaining parameter of the Higgs boson sector, as established above, is merely the Higgs boson mass. Everything observable can be predicted by knowing
{p} and mh.
The prediction for the ith observable, such as the Z width or Z →l+l− branching ratio, we can write asOth
i (mh,{p}). The measurement of the observable isOiexpt with
uncertainty ∆Oexpti . We want to somehow cycle over all our parameters and find the optimal set that matches best the experimental measurements. The formal way to do this is to construct a χ2 function which when minimized gives the best fit to the data: χ2 =X i (Oth i (mh,{p})− Oiexpt)2 (∆Oiexpt)2 . (60)
Now, with thisχ2 you can ask two questions. The first question is whether the theory matches the data. The answer is affirmative if at the minimum of theχ2 function its value per degree of freedom is not much larger than 1: χ2
min/d.o.f.∼1. If it’s much
less than 1 then the laws of statistics are being violated and there is a systematic bias among the experimentalists to get “the right answer”. In the Standard Model, the
χ2
min/d.o.f. is 17.8/13 (see Table 10.2 on page 133 of [10]), which is good enough to
establish that the Standard Model is compatible with the data.
Once it has been established that the theory is compatible with the data, one can ask a separate interesting question. What is the allowed interval for a particular parameter of the fit? That is decided at the 95% CL by constructing a
∆χ2(mh,{p})≡χ2(mh,{p})−χ2min (61)
function, and finding the maximum interval range of mh, allowing all variations of {p} needed to minimize ∆χ2, such that ∆χ2 < (1.96)2 [12]. This has been done in the Standard Model, for example in fig. 10.5 on page 137 of [10]. I reprint here in fig. 1 the ∆χ2 determination from the Summer 2009 update [13] of the LEP Electroweak Working Group. The interval has a lower limit well below the direct limit of 114.4 GeV, but the upper limit of the interval is ∼ 200 GeV. There are various precise numbers given, for various assumptions of how to treat α(mZ) and what
complete collection of observables to include, so I am being a little conservative and quoting a squiggly number a little above most of the precise numbers listed. See the LEP Electroweak Working group website for the very latest in this evolving story [14]. Thus, I will maintain somewhat loosely that the indirect precision electroweak fits
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 100 30 300
m
H[
GeV
]
∆χ
2 Excluded Preliminary ∆αhad = ∆α(5) 0.02758±0.00035 0.02749±0.00012 incl. low Q2 dataTheory uncertainty
August 2009 mLimit = 157 GeV
Figure 1: ∆χ2 fit to electroweak precision observables as a function of the Higgs boson mass in the Standard Model. Detailed description of the plot can be found in [10]. This particular plot is the latest from the summer 2009 update [13]. The 95% CL interval is for ∆χ2 < (1.96)2, leading to m
h <∼200 GeV upper limit from precision
electroweak analysis.
suggest that there is high range of Higgs masses excluded by the data
mh >∼200 GeV excluded at 95% CL (Precision EW) (62)
This indirect limit from precision electroweak should not be taken as rigidly as the direct limits from LEP2 and Tevatron, since it is relatively easy to form a conspiracy with other new states that allow for a heavier Higgs boson [15].
Putting it all together, the current expectation is that the Higgs boson must have mass somewhere in one of two regions
114.4 GeV< mh <160 GeV or 170 GeV< mh <∼200 GeV. (63)
Another slightly more provocative way of saying it is that the Standard Model is incompatible with the data unless the Higgs boson mass falls within this limited range.
Discovery will have to wait for much more data at the Tevatron, or more probably, the LHC. LHC discovery channels and prospects are also evolving, especially as the energy of the machine may go through various unanticipated phases. Excellent places to read about the latest studies in this regard are at [16, 17].
5
Perturbative Unitarity
In the previous lecture we summarized the current experimental constraints on the Higgs boson and some of the ways that it can be found and studied at the Large Hadron Collider. In this lecture we would like to stretch and pull the electroweak theory to find regimes where the theory might not make sense any more. After all, the Fermi theory of four-fermion interactions described phenomena well when it was introduced many years ago, but physicists knew that it only had a finite energy range of applicability before the theory became strongly coupled and not useful. Might a similar fate befall the Standard Model electroweak sector?
The first place to poke at the electroweak theory is obviously in high-energy vector boson scattering. The reason is that a divergence develops at increasing energy in the longitudinal polarization vector of the massive electroweak gauge bosons. What might this mean to the calculability of our theory? To answer this question let us begin with considering the three polarization vectors of the massive gauge bosons
V =W±, Z0 traveling with three-momentum~k in the ˆz direction with magnitude k:
~k = kzˆ. The on-shell four vector of this motion is kµ = (E
k;~k) = (Ek; 0,0, k) where
E2
k =k2+m2V is the energy. The three polarization vectors are
ǫµ+(~k) = 1 √ 2(0; 1, i,0) (righthanded polarized) (64) ǫµ−(~k) = √1 2(0; 1,−i,0) (lefthanded polarized) (65) ǫµL(~k) = 1 mV (k; 0,0, Ek) (longitudinally polarized) (66)
where the polarization vectors satisfy the required identities
kµǫµa(~k) = 0 and ǫµa(~k)ǫ∗bµ(~k) =−δab (67)
for all polarizationsa, b= +,−, L.
Even the most casual inspection of these equations throws up a caution flag: the longitudinal polarization vector diverges without bound for Ek ≫ mV. Thus, any
computations of cross-sections with external longitudinally polarized massive vector bosons could very well “go strong” as the center of mass energy increases above some critical energy, signaling the breakdown of the electroweak theory. Investigation is warranted. The more external longitudinally polarized vector bosons that are in the process the better, so let us as a thought experiment consider WL+WL− → WL+WL−
scattering and ask at what energy it breaks down.
Not surprisingly, this concern was recognized in the very early days of the elec-troweak theory. An excellent paper that summarizes the situation in the elecelec-troweak theory is by Lee, Quigg and Thacker [18]. Among other processes in their comprehen-sive study, they considered W+
LWL− → WL+WL−. There are seven tree-level diagrams
to compute in the electroweak theory that can be grouped into three classes: Four point interaction (FP): W W W W four-point interaction.
Gauge exchange (GE): s- and t-channel γ and Z boson exchange. Higgs exchange (HE): s- and t-channel Higgs boson exchange.
The amplitudes of any of these classes of diagrams can be written as an exchange in the high center of mass energy limit s, t≫m2
V, m2h:
A=A(2)s2+A(1)s+A(0) (68)
Computations reveal that
A(2) = A(2)F P +A(2)GE →0 (69) A(1) = A(1)F P +A(1)GE+A(1)HE →0 (70) A(0) = A(0)F P +A(0)GE+A(0)HE → −2m 2 h v2 (71)
A miracle of cancellations has happened. The amplitude does not grow without bound as we go to higher and higher energy. Instead, the amplitude asymptotes to a constant value.
This miracle is equivalent to the miracle of the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem [19], which states that amplitudes of longitudinal boson scattering at high energy are equivalent to amplitudes with the Goldstone bosons that ultimately are absorbed as the longitudinal components of the vector bosons up tom2
V/scorrections: A(WL+WL−→WL+WL−) = A(φ+φ− →φ+φ−) +O m2 W s . (72)
Higgs doublet Φ = φ + 1 √ 2(v+h)−i φ0 √ 2 ! and Φ† = φ− 1 √ 2(v+h) +i φ0 √ 2 !T . (73)
Expanding the Higgs potential
V(Φ) =λ Φ†Φ− v 2 2 2 (74) about the vev, one finds the relevant interaction lagrangian
Lφ =−m 2 h v hφ +φ−− m2h 2v2φ +φ−φ+φ−+· · · (75) where m2 h = 2λv2.
From the interaction lagrangian of eq. (75) one can compute the amplitude
A(φ+φ− →φ+φ−) =−m 2 h v2 s s−m2 h + t t−m2 h → −2m 2 h v2 (76)
where the far right term comes from taking the limit ofs, t≫m2
h. This result matches
what was obtained in eq. (71). Of course, in this approach we did not necessarily expect a problem. Scalar bosons do not have “diverging polarization vectors” to worry about. This is a case where looking at the problem with more appropriate degrees of freedom reveals simply that a problem we thought might exist never can exist.
Despite the successes of the electroweak theory in controlling its scattering of longitudinal vector bosons, a concern remains. The amplitude scales with the as-yet unknown Higgs boson mass. If the Higgs boson mass is too large then the theory is strongly interacting and we cannot compute anymore. This is not a surprise. The amplitude is really just the Higgs boson self-coupling m2
h/v2 ∼ λ, and any coupling
that grows too large will create difficulties in a perturbation theory expansion. For example, the W+W+ → (W W)
loop → W+W− one-loop amplitude should scale as
∼ 2λ2/16π2. This is appropriately sketchy – the factor of 2 is from two one-loop diagrams for this process, and the factor of 16π2 is the generic loop factor. Thus, the one-loop contribution would compete with the tree-level amplitude ofW+W−→
W+W−of sizeλifλ∼8π2. So, naively, we can say that the electroweak Higgs theory breaks down if mh ∼
√
2λv= 4πv≃3.1 TeV.
As an interlude, we can approach the question of perturbativity from the per-spective of the decays of the Higgs boson into longitudinal vector boson states. The
partial widths of Higgs boson decays to W-bosons and Z-bosons are Γ(h→W W) = 1 16π m3 h v2 1−4m 2 W m2 h + 12m 4 W m4 h s 1−4m 2 W m2 h , (77) Γ(h→ZZ) = 1 32π m3 h v2 1−4m 2 Z m2 h + 12m 4 Z m4 h s 1−4m 2 Z m2 h . (78)
The width grows quite strongly withmh, which is another manifestation of the strong
coupling involving longitudinal vector bosons at high energy. Explicit calculation of the longitudinally polarized final states compared to transversely polarized as a function ofmh shows that the ratio scales asm4h/8m4W for largemh, which is expected.
One measure of perturbativity is to ask at what Higgs boson mass does the tree-level computed width equal the mass. Of course, when they are equal the tree-tree-level computation is not valid, but it is a well-defined algorithm to understand the scales at which the theory is behaving badly. Using the above equations, which dominate the width1, we find that Γ
h =mh when mh ≃1.4 TeV. Likewise, the width is well above
mh/2 for mh >∼1 TeV, and so we can say that the Higgs boson is not a respectable,
narrow width particle if its mass is in the trans-TeV regime2. This is one measure of validity of perturbation theory.
Let us go back to the longitudinal scattering process W+
LWL− → WL+WL−. The
limit of 3.1 TeV that we derived earlier for the Higgs boson mass based on the validity of a perturbative expansion of longitudinal W scattering was not very rigorous. We can do better by asking ourselves what Higgs boson mass corresponds to a formal violation of unitarity if we compute only at tree level. The path to answering this question starts with expanding the amplitude in terms of partial waves [21]
A =
∞
X
ℓ=0
Aℓ, where Aℓ = 16π(2ℓ+ 1)Pℓ(cosθ)aℓ. (79)
The variableℓ labels the spin-ℓ partial wave, andPℓ(cosθ) are Legendre Polynomials
with θ being the angle at which the final state W+ deviates from the W+ incoming direction. Using orthogonality of the Legendre polynomials, and integrating over|A|2
1
For example, the only would-be competitor is the final state of top quarks, but the branching fraction into top quarks is never the leading decay of the Higgs boson for any Higgs mass.
Furthermore, as the Higgs boson mass increases well above t¯t threshold, its branching fraction
decreases rapidly with respect to the vector boson branching fractions because of the latter’s m3
h
scaling.
2
one finds the cross-section σ =X ℓ σℓ, where σℓ = 16π s (2ℓ+ 1)|aℓ| 2. (80)
Conservation of probability for elastic scattering requires
aℓ =
e2iδℓ−1
2i . (81)
Varying 2δℓ from 0 to 2π sweeps out a circle of radius 12 centered at (0,12) in the
complex plane of Im(aℓ) vs. Re(aℓ). Nowhere on that circle is it possible to have
Re(aℓ)>1/2 or Re(aℓ)<−1/2, which implies the perturbativity rule that |Re(aℓ)| ≤
1
2. (82)
Since the theory ultimately is perturbative, violating at tree-level the condition ex-pressed by eq. (82) is equivalent to saying the tree-level computation is unreliable and our perturbative description of the theory is not valid at high energies. Of course, it does not mean that the tree-level contribution cannot be greater than 1
2, since there can be cancellations at higher order to bring a tree-level result of 1
2 +ǫ down to below 12. Nor should it be considered as the rigorous value to compare with the reliability of a calculation. However, in a perturbation theory, it is expected that being near the unitarity limit of aℓ at some fixed low order is an indication that the
perturbation expansion may be in trouble. The criteria is well-defined, but as usual with any discussion of this nature, the physics content of the precise statement is not as precise. But let us take it seriously.
To compute the values of the Higgs boson mass that violates eq. (82) we must first find the various partial wave expansion coefficients. In the very high energy limit
s≫m2
W the zeroth partial wave is
a0 = 1 16πs Z 0 −sA dt=− m 2 h 16πv2 " 2 + m 2 h s−m2 h − m 2 h s log s m2 h − ∞ X n=2 (−1)n n−1 m2 h s n#
In the limit that the energy is much greater than the Higgs mass one finds
a0 → − m2 h 8πv2 in the limit s≫m 2 h. (83)
Applyling eq. (82) to this result one finds
− m2 h 8πv2 ≤ 1 2 =⇒ mh <2v √ π= 870 GeV. (84)
What this is purported to mean (see caveats below) is that there is no perturbative description of the Standard Model for arbitrarily high energies if the Higgs boson mass is greater than this critical mass of 870 GeV.
The perturbativity limit of 870 GeV can be reduced even further down to about 710 GeV by taking into account more 2 → 2 scattering amplitudes that depend on the Higgs boson mass, such as WLWL → ZLZL, etc. [22, 23, 24]. There is a matrix
of these kinds of amplitudes. When diagonalizing it, one finds a particular linear combination of incoming states and outgoing states that has the highest a0 partial wave. After some analysis one finds that the amplitude is such that a Higgs boson mass greater than 710 GeV violates eq. (82).
Be careful how you think about this bound of 710 GeV. The number is computed by a precise definition – tree-level partial wave unitarity of two-to-two processes in the electroweak theory – but the number’s physical meaningis not as precise, for the same reasons that we discussed above. For example, the electroweak theory does not go from a highly convergent well-behaved perturbation theory atmh = 709 GeV to a
disastrously out of control non-perturbative theory at mh = 711 GeV. Although it is
true that the pretense that the calculation is under control is self-evidently suspect above the perturbative unitarity limit, higher-order corrections are still required to make decent predictions when the Higgs mass is large even if below the perturbative unitarity limit. Indeed, higher-order corrections may push the amplitude over the perturbative unitarity edge. Likewise, if you dream up new physics that cancels the tree-level graphs and enables a Higgs boson of, say, 900 GeV to satisfy the unitarity limits at tree-level, that does not mean that at the next order of computation things remain perturbatively under control. Declarations of perturbative unitarity cannot be made solely upon unprincipled, manufactured cancellations at any finite order in perturbation theory.
6
High Scale Perturbativity and Vacuum Stability
When considering the full domain of applicability of the electroweak theory, we must ask what the behavior of the couplings is at very high energy. In the Standard Model there are several couplings that are reasonably large at the electroweak scale: the gauge couplings gi = {0.41,0.64,1.2}, the top Yukawa coupling yt =
√
2mt/v ≃ 1,
and the Higgs boson self-couplingλ=m2
h/2v2. When scattering at very high energies
there can be large logarithms log(E/MEW) with prefactors of these couplings. Large
lecture, we will look at the behavior of the large couplings of the Standard Model in the ultraviolet by employing the techniques of renormalization group evolution. These RG equations are [25, 26]3
dg1 dt = 41 10 g3 1 16π2, dg2 dt =− 19 6 g3 2 16π2, dg3 dt =−7 g3 3 16π2 (85) dyt dt = yt 16π2 −1720g12− 9 4g 2 2−8g32+ 9 2y 2 t dλ dt = 1 16π2 24λ2−λ 9 5g 2 1+ 9g22+ 12y2t +9 8 3 25g 4 1 + 2 5g 2 1g22+g24 −6y4t where t≡ln(Q/Q0), and g1 = r 5 3 p 4πα(mZ) cosθW ≃ 0.46 (GUT normalized) (86) g2 = p 4πα(mZ) sinθW ≃ 0.65 (87) g3 = p 4πα3(mZ)≃1.2 (88) λ = m 2 h 2v2 where v = 246 GeV. (89)
We will look for two breakdowns of the theory in our analysis: perturbative validity and vacuum stability in the UV. We begin with perturbative validity [27]. If any of the couplings gets very strong at some high scale we will posit that the Standard Model theory is no longer a good description above that scale. The λ coupling is uncertain since we do not know the Higgs boson mass, but if it is large it will continue to grow into the ultraviolate due to the +24λ2 term in its RG equation. When the coupling goes strong by some definition, e.g. λ > 4π or λ > √4π, at some scale, it is also the case that it will quickly develop a divergence, or Landau pole, at a scale very soon above that. We of course are discussing computations that are being performed at fixed order in perturbation theory and are not technically valid in the strong coupling regime. Nevertheless, we have no reason to suspect that a strongly coupled theory at one loop would suddenly be very well behaved at higher order, so it is a good approximation to continue with the analysis. Thus, we will conflate the two definitions into one and call this scale QLP – the scale at which λ diverges into a
Landau Pole. If our theory encounters a scale QLP in its RG evolution into the UV,
3
In the RG equations I have taken into account that my Higgs self-coupling is defined byV =
λ|Φ†Φ|2
+· · · (i.e., m2
h = 2λv
2
where hΦi=v/√2), whereas the one of refs. [25, 26] is defined by
V = 1 2λ|Φ†Φ| 2 +· · · (i.e.,m2 h=λv 2 where hΦi=v/√2).
we will say that it is perturbatively valid for all E < QLP, but unknown or not valid
for E > QLP.
Inspection of the RG equations (85) shows us that in the limit of large Higgs mass the term that dominates the RG equation of the Higgs self-coupling is the +24λ2 term. The RG equation in this limit simplifies to
dλ dt ≃
3λ2
2π2 (90)
which is easy to solve
λ(Q) = λ(Q0) 1−3λ(Q0)
2π2 ln(Q/Q0)
. (91)
The Landau pole occurs where the denominator goes to zero, which enables us to solve for the Landau Pole QLP scale in terms of λ(Q0) at the scale Q0. Choosing
Q0 =mh one finds 1− 3λ(mh) 2π2 ln QLP mh = 0 =⇒ QLP =mhexp 4π2v2 3m2 h (92) A few example values are if mh = 200 GeV (300 GeV) the Landau pole scale would
beQLP ≃9×109GeV (2×106GeV). In fig. 2 the upper curve traces out the ordered
pair values of (mh, QLP) where Λ-axis of the plot should be interpreted asQLP for this
upper curve. The plot was made more carefully [28] than the simple approximation above, with all couplings included in the RG evolution at two loops. Uncertainties in the top quark mass are not terribly important for this particularly calculation. What we see is that if the Higgs boson mass is less than 180 GeV the theory is perturbative all the way up to the Planck scale of ∼1018GeV.
The second breakdown of the theory may be vacuum instability [27, 29, 30, 28]. Motivated by the various terms in the RG equation for the Higgs boson self-coupling, and the uncertainty inλ due to present ignorance of the Higgs mass, we can envision a scenario for a light Higgs boson where the−6y4
t term dominates in the RG equation
forλ. If that is the case then at some scaleλturns negative. Let us call this scaleQN G
where NG is short for “λ goes negative.” This is a disaster for the Higgs potential, sinceλφ4is the only important term in the potential when the field values ofφare very large. Thus, it is to be expected that new physics should come in at scales roughly near QN G to lift the potential up, whatever the appropriate degrees of freedom are,
and keep our vacuum stable for at least the lifetime of the universe.
In fig. 2 the lower curve traces the ordered pair (mh, QN G) solution. The x-axis
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 103 106 109 1012 1015 1018 0 200 300 400 500 600 700
sin
2θ
W( )
Λ
Λ
[GeV]
m
[GeV]
Standard Model = µ max[ ( m = 174.3 GeV mphyst experimental limit = m ) µ ( m = 169.2 GeVphyst t (µ = m ) ( = 179.4 GeV m = 174.3 GeV mphyst µ = m ) phys h 100 h h h h h h h h/2,mZ])Figure 2: The upper curve is to be interpreted as the Higgs mass mh that leads to
a Landau pole in the Higgs self coupling at the scale Λ (= QLP). The lower curve is
to be interpreted as the Higgs mass mh that leads to the Higgs self coupling turning
negative at the scale Λ (=QN G). Plot taken from ref. [28].
mass were to have been found at about 60 GeV it would have implied that our vacuum is unstable, unless new physics came in at about the TeV scale to lift the potential. If the Higgs mass is greater than about 130 GeV then there is no vacuum stability concern all the way up to the Planck scale.
As a final comment to this lecture, some people have labeled the Higgs boson mass range of 130 GeV<∼mh <∼180 GeV the “nightmare scenario”, since by the arguments
above there would be no firm computational reason to declare with certainty that new physics must be present below the Planck scale. Anxiety increases when one realizes that the precision electroweak analysis and direct limits of the Higgs boson that we discussed in an earlier lecture are forcing us into that Higgs mass window independently. To me this concern is not so severe, since I interpret the data as suggesting that the Higgs sector coupling λ must match to a reasonable perurbative coupling at some high scale, perhaps through a few steps but nevertheless the physics from here to the Planck scale is perturbative. This gives slight preference for the Higgs mass to be in the “nightmare” range without the terror. Minimal supersymmetry is an example theory of this category.
7
Adding Another Higgs Boson: Electroweak
Sym-metry Breaking
We have analyzed the Standard Model Higgs boson and find an appealing framework for giving mass to vector bosons and the fermions. However, it is natural to ask ourselves about the possibility of having more than one Higgs boson, just as we have more than one electron (i.e., muon and tau leptons), more than one down quark (i.e., strange and bottom quarks), and more than one up quark (i.e., charm and top quarks). Let us take that option seriously in this section and discuss some of the issues relevant for electroweak symmetry breaking.
As we will see in the next section, adding another Higgs boson can be very dangerous from the perspective of flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC) if we allow it to couple arbitrarily to Standard Model fermions. For this reason, let us suppose that the new Higgs boson Φ2does not couple to the Standard Model fermions, although its Standard Model quantum numbers (2,1/2) are the same as the first Higgs boson Φ1. This can be ensured by making it odd under a Z2 symmetry, while the other Higgs boson is even:
Φ1 → Φ1 (93)
Φ2 → −Φ2. (94)
The fermions of the Standard Model can be odd or even f → ±f with impunity, and the gauge bosons are even.
The most general Higgs potential that we can write down with these symmetries is V(Φ1,Φ2) = µ21|Φ1|2+µ2|Φ2|2+λ1|Φ1|4+λ2|Φ2|4+λ3|Φ1|2|Φ2|2 +λ4(Φ†2Φ1)(Φ†1Φ2) + λ5 2(Φ † 1Φ2)2+c.c. . (95)
Without loss of generality all the λi couplings are real. Hermiticity demands it for
allλi except λ5, which can be rotated to real by Φ2 absorbing its phase.
The potential must be bounded from below in all field directions. One can test for dangerous runaway directions by parametrizing field excursions such as (Φ1,Φ2) → (a, a) where a can be arbitrarily large in value. Here are a few field directions to
consider and their corresponding unbounded from below (UFB) constraints: (Φ1,Φ2) direction UFB constraint
(a,0) λ1 >0 (0, a) λ2 >0 (a, a) P iλi >0 (λ12/4a, λ11/4a) λ3+λ4+λ5+ 2√λ1λ2 >0 (96)
The third constraint is never as powerful as the fourth constraint and is superfluous to write down.
The most general vacuum expectations values for the two Φ1,2 Higgs fields can be expressed as (see, e.g., [31])
Φ1 = 0 v1 ! , and Φ2 = u2 v2eiξ ! . (97)
A non-zero u2 would indicate the full breaking of SU(2)×U(1)Y, and in particular
the photon would obtain mass. Let us carry forward for now with this general vacuum structure to investigate the consequences.
For the potential to be stable we must be at a minimum, which is to be determined by setting dV /dφi = 0 for all real fieldsφi defined in
Φ1 = φ1+iφ2 φ3+iφ4 ! , and Φ2 = φ5+iφ6 φ7+iφ8 ! . (98)
The minimization conditions [31] derived from each of these derivatives are
φ1 : (λ4+λ5)u2v1v2cosξ = 0 φ2 : (λ4−λ5)u2v1v2sinξ = 0 φ3 : v1[µ21+ 2λ1v21+λ4v22+λ5v22cos 2ξ+λ3(u22+v22)] = 0 φ4 : λ5v1v22sin 2ξ= 0 φ5 : u2[µ22+λ3v12+ 2λ2(u22+v22)] = 0 φ6 : 0 = 0 φ7 : v2cosξ[µ22+ (λ3+λ4+λ5)v12+ 2λ2(u22+v22)] = 0 φ8 : v2sinξ[µ22+ (λ3+λ4−λ5)v12+ 2λ2(u22+v22)] = 0 (99)
Inspection of these equations tells us that except for possibly at special points where
λ4±λ5 = 0 there is no hope in satisfying the minimization conditions if all three vevs
If we allow both (v1, u2) to be non-zero and v2 = 0, we are in the situation of full breaking of SU(2)×U(1)Y. When analyzing the spectrum one finds four
massless scalars, which are Goldstone bosons to be eaten by the four generators of
SU(2)×U(1)Y to form longitudinal components of massive W±, Z and A. There
remain four physical scalar states in the spectrum
m2φ˜1 = (λ4+λ5)(u22+v21) (100)
m2φ˜2 = (λ4−λ5)(u22+v12) (101)
m2φ˜3 ≃ (4λ2−λ23/λ1)u22 (102)
m2φ˜4 ≃ 4λ1v12 (103)
where the last two mass eigenstates are derived under the assumption that u2 ≪v2. In order for this theory to have a stable minimum all m2
˜
φi must be positive, which
puts the condition on the couplings that
λ1 >0, λ4+λ5 >0, λ4−λ5 >0, 4λ1λ2−λ23 >0 (104) which is easily satisfied over large parts of parameter space. Thus, a random dart throw in the space of couplings of a general two Higgs doublet model can “just as often” give a massive photon as a massless photon. It is for this reason that some people are turned off [32] by the general two Higgs doublet model compared to the Standard Model Higgs doublet theory that guarantees the photon does not get mass. But let us carry on. We are more interested in the case where the symmetry breaking is proper SU(2)×U(1)Y →U(1)em. Thus, we take the other case where v1 and v2 are non-zero. The minimization conditions become
φ1 : 0 = 0 φ2 : 0 = 0 φ3 : v1[µ21+ 2λ1v21 +λ3v22+λ4v22+λ5v22cos 2ξ] = 0 φ4 : λ5v1v22sin 2ξ= 0 φ5 : 0 = 0 φ6 : 0 = 0 φ7 : v2cosξ[µ22+ (λ3+λ4+λ5)v21+ 2λ2v22] = 0 φ8 : v2sinξ[µ22+ (λ3+λ4 −λ5)v12+ 2λ2v22] = 0 (105) Choosing µ2
1 and µ22 appropriately to zero out the conditions φ3 and φ7, we are left with only two non-trivial conditions yet to be satisfied:
φ4 : λ5v1v22sin 2ξ= 0
φ8 : λ5v12v2sinξ= 0
We will see shortly that we need λ5 6= 0 so that leaves us with the requirement that
ξ = 0 orπ. We choose ξ= 0 for our convention, since the opposite sign (ξ=π) can be reabsorbed by a field rephasing of Φ1 or Φ2, take your pick, which simultaneously flips the sign in front of the λ5 term of the potential.
We need to check if this solution is stable. To do that we require that the second derivative of the potential, i.e. the mass matrix, be positive definite. The 8×8 mass matrix in the {φ1, φ2, . . . , φ8}basis is M2φiφj =
0 B B B B B B B B B B B B @ −(λ4+λ5)v22 0 0 0 (λ4+λ5)v1v2 0 0 0 0 −(λ4+λ5)v22 0 0 0 (λ4+λ5)v1v2 0 0 0 0 4λ1v2 0 0 0 2(λ3+λ4+λ5)v1v2 0 0 0 0 −2λ5v2 2 0 0 0 2λ5v1v2 (λ4+λ5)v1v2 0 0 0 −(λ4+λ5)v2 1 0 0 0 0 (λ4+λ5)v1v2 0 0 0 −(λ4+λ5)v12 0 0 0 0 2(λ3+λ4+λ5)v1v2 0 0 0 4λ2v2 2 0 0 0 0 2λ5v1v2 0 0 0 −2λ5v21 1 C C C C C C C C C C C C A
The large number of zeros in this matrix enables us to find very quickly what the eigenvalues are by solving four 2 ×2 matrices. These matrices arise from φkφk+4 mixing fork = 1,2,3,4. To begin with, we look at theφ1φ5 and φ2φ6 mixings, which have the same 2×2 mass matrix:
M2φ1φ5 =M 2 φ2φ6 = −(λ4 +λ5)v22 (λ4+λ5)v1v2 (λ4+λ5)v1v2 −(λ4+λ5)v12 ! (107) which leads to four eigenstates
m2G± = 0 (charged Goldstone bosons) (108)
m2H± = −(λ4+λ5)(v12+v22) (charged Higgs bosons). (109) Now let us look at φ4φ8 mixing:
M2φ4φ8 =
−2λ5v22 2λ5v1v2 2λ5v1v2 −2λ5v21
!
. (110)
This leads to two eigenstates
m2G0 = 0 (neutral Goldstone bosons) (111)
m2
A0 = −2λ5(v21+v22) (neutral pseudoscalar boson). (112)
Finally, there is φ3φ7 mixing:
M2φ3φ7 =
4λ1v12 2(λ3+λ4+λ5)v1v2 2(λ3 +λ4+λ5)v1v2 4λ2v22
!
This is the 2×2 mass matrix for the two physical neutral scalar Higgs bosons of the theory, h0 and H0. The sum of the eigenvalues is the trace of the matrix
m2h0 +m2H0 = 4λ1v21+ 4λ2v22. (114) The mixing angle to rotate from {φ3, φ7} basis to {h0, H0} basis is usually called α, which is defined by convention to satisfy
H0 h0 ! = cosα sinα −sinα cosα ! φ3 φ7 ! . (115)
The solutions are obtained by simple eigenvalue, eigenvector analysis of the 2×2 matrix, and one obtains
sin 2α = p ηv1v2 (λ1v12−λ2v22)2+ 4η2v12v22 (116) cos 2α = λ1v 2 1 −λ2v22 p (λ1v12−λ2v22)2+ 4η2v12v22 (117) and m2H0 = 2λ1v12+ 2λ2v22+|2λ1v12−2λ2v22| s 1 + 4 ηv1v2 λ1v21 −λ2v22 2 (118) m2h0 = 2λ1v12+ 2λ2v22− |2λ1v12−2λ2v22| s 1 + 4 ηv1v2 λ1v12−λ2v22 2 (119) where for simplicity I have defined
η ≡ 1
2(λ3+λ4+λ5). (120)
From our solution we have learned several things. We have computed three massless states that correspond to the Goldstone bosons ofSU(2)×U(1)Y →U(1)em
symmetry breaking. These states become the longitudinal components of W± and
Z0. We also require that the mass matrix be positive definite, which puts important constraints on the parameters of the theory. For example, from the charged Higgs and pseudo-scalar Higgs boson masses we know that
λ4+λ5 <0, and λ5 <0 (121) is required. Note, the sign condition on λ4 +λ5 is exactly opposite to that of the case where u2 6= 0 and the photon gets a mass. An interesting question is whether
λ
4λ
5 λ5 =λ4 Massive Photon Massless Photon (0,0)Figure 3: Parameter space for massive versus massless photon in the type I two Higgs doublet model of eq. (95). The partition of the parameter space between massless and massive photon for λ5 <0 is obtained by reflecting this plot around the λ5 = 0 axis.
the “photon mass region” we specified earlier, through conditions only on λ4 and λ5, could have been consistent with u2 = 0 and v2 6= 0 vacua if other parameters were adjusted. The results here answer that question as a definitive no. If λ4 +λ5 > 0 it is impossible to have a vacuum with v1, v2 6= 0, and the only option remaining is the massive photon vacuum of u2 6= 0. Fig. 3 plots the parameter space in the λ4 vs. λ5 plane that corresponds to massive photon and massless photon cases, in agreement with [31].
Finally, it appears that there is a large region of λ5 > 0 and λ4 −λ5 < 0 that has no solution. However, the vacuum structure is symmetric about either sign of λ5 because of the rephasing that we can do to change v2 <0 (ξ =π case) to v2 → −v2 and λ5 → −λ5. Thus, the partition of the parameter space between massless and massive photon for λ5 <0 is obtained by reflecting fig. 3 around the λ5 = 0 axis.
Let us point out another interest result in this analysis. The physical pseudoscalar mass scales to zero m2
allowed by the data, and so if we want to avoid this problem we have to be sure that our theory allows a λ5 coupling. The reason behind this result is the usual reason behind such scaling behavior. There is a symmetry that protects the pseudoscalar mass asλ5 → 0. If it were not for theλ5term in our potential then it would be possible to rephase one of the fields, say Φ1, arbitrarily with respect to the other field. When the field gets a vev, this global symmetry is spontaneously broken, thereby leading to a Goldstone boson. In that limit,A0is identified as a Goldstone boson of Φ
1 rephasing symmetry. To give A0 mass we need explicit breaking somewhere in the theory. The
λ5 term provides that for us since (Φ†1Φ2)2 does not allow arbitrary rephasing of Φ1 with respect to Φ2. For small couplingλ5 the pseudoscalar mass is much smaller than the characteristic scale of the problems,v2
1+v22, and we might call it a pseudo-Nambu Goldstone boson. Ifλ5 ∼1 then we can drop all such modifiers since we can no longer make the pretense that the rephasing symmetry is approximately or nearly valid.
This kind of argument occurs time and time again in particle physics. The most famous early application is in pion physics. Why is the pion so small in mass with respect to the proton? The reason is that massless quarks respect an SU(2)L ×
SU(2)R chiral flavour symmetry – left and right handed quarks can be separately
rephased in SU(2) space with respect to each other. Chiral symmetry breaking of QCD spontaneously breaks this to the vector subgroupSU(2)L×SU(2)R→SU(2)V
leading to three massless Goldstone bosons m2
π±,0 = 0. But we know pions are not
exactly massless. They get their mass by virtue of the quarks’ elementary masses
mqqL†qR+c.c., i.e. from tiny explicit breaking of the full chiral flavor symmetry that
does not allow qL to be rephased completely independently from qR. Thus, pions
ultimately do get mass m2
π ∝ mqmproton. Since mq ≪ mproton we conclude that
m2
π ≪ m2proton. In this analogy, λ5 is like the quark masses, and v12,2 is like ΛQCD or
the proton mass.
You might be concerned that in supersymmetric theories there is no such coupling
λ5. But do not fear. In that theory there is no Z2 symmetry between the two Higgs doublets and we are allowed the all importantBµΦuΦdinteraction that explicit breaks
any attempted independent rephasing. Thus, we already know that the pseudoscalar mass in supersymmetry must be m2
8
Adding Another Higgs Boson: Flavor Changing
Neutral Currents
In the previous section we assumed that the second Higgs boson possessed an odd charge under a globalZ2discrete symmetry in order to forbid its coupling to fermions. We did this using the argument that generically one expects large flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) problems otherwise. In this lecture we discuss this challenge to a multi-Higgs doublet theory, and conclude the discussion with a simple theorem that expresses how a large class of theories with multiple Higgs bosons can avoid the bane of tree-level FCNC.
Our theory is the general two-Higgs doublet model with fields Φ1 and Φ2, just as in the previous lecture, but without any extra Z2 symmetry. We will not focus on the electroweak symmetry breaking aspects of this model since the techniques of the previous lecture immediately apply. Rather, we worry about the Higgs boson interactions with the fermions. From the perspective of both EWSB and flavor physics, there is a Higgs field basis that is particularly interesting. Let me call it the “Runge4 basis”. It is defined to be the basis in which one Higgs field carries the full vev, Φvev, and the other Higgs field is perpendicular to it, Φ⊥:
Φvev = v1 v Φ1+ v2 v Φ2 = cosωΦ1+ sinωΦ2 (122) Φ⊥ = −v2 v Φ1+ v1 v Φ2 =−sinωΦ1+ cosωΦ2 (123) where v2 ≡ v2
1 +v22, cosω = v1/v and sinω = v2/v. The angle ω is usually denoted by β in the literature, but to minimize confusions I want to only use β in the supersymmetric two-Higgs doublet model later.
The Runge basis is very helpful from the EWSB point of view also, since we know the Goldstone bosons must be contained entirely within the field that gets the vev Φvev. Thus, in this basis we can identify
Φvev = G± 1 √ 2(v+ϕ′1+iG 0) ! , and Φ⊥ = 1 H± √ 2(ϕ′2+iA 0) ! (124) where G±,0 are the Goldstone bosons,H± the physical charged Higgs bosons, A0 the pseudoscalar Higgs boson, andϕ1,2 the physical scalar Higgs bosons.
4
Runge is my 3rd
great-grandfather of physics and was the world’s expert on vectors. He wrote a
famous book on the subject(Die Vektoranalysis des dreidimensionalen Raumes, 1919), which led to
his name being attached, somewhat undeservedly, to the Runge-Lenz vector of classical mechanics. In that tradition, and also because of its winsome euphony, I call it the “Runge basis.”
The Runge basis is helpful from the perspective of flavor physics since all the fermions must get mass only through Φvev. Thus, after a suitable rotation of the
fermion weak eigenstates into mass eigenstates, the couplings toϕ′
1 must be diagonal,
ϕ′1f¯ifj : i
mfi
v δij (Feynman rule), (125)
wheref indicates one of three species fermions: up-type quarks (fi ={u, c, t}),
down-type quarks (fi = {d, s, b}) or leptons (fi = {e, µ, τ}). The couplings to ϕ′2 and A0 can be anything and are in general not diagonal:
ϕ′2f¯ifj : iξijf (Feynman rule) (126)
A0f¯ifj : iξijfγ5 (Feynman rule), (127) and we will take ξijf =ξjif∗ [33].
The CP even mass-eigenstates are a linear combination ofϕ′
1 andϕ′2 through the mixing angle α′ H0 h0 ! = cosα′ sinα′ −sinα′ cosα′ ! ϕ′ 1 ϕ′ 2 ! (128) which leads to final expressions for the Feynman rules of the mass eigenstate scalars with the fermions:
Hf¯ifj : icosα′ mfi v δij +isinα ′ξf ij (129) hf¯ifj : −isinα′ mfi v δij +icosα ′ξf ij. (130)
The existence of arbitrary flavor couplings ξijf in this extended Higgs sector is dangerous to flavor physics. Stringent flavor observables within this context are mass splittings in F0 − F0 mixing [33]. Within the Standard Model, these mass splittings are accomplished via box diagrams with W± and quarks in the loop (see Fig. 4). Experimental results are nicely consistent with these being the dominant source of FCNC. With generic ξijf couplings in the two-Higgs doublet model, the mass splitting predictions can be significantly higher since they can occur through tree-level interactions of the sort ¯qq′ →higgs∗ →q¯′q.
Let us quantify the extent of this challenge to flavor physics compatibility. The Standard Model diagram and the Higgs exchange diagrams are given in Fig. 4. The
Meson (quarks) BF fF (GeV) ∆MFexpt (GeV)
K0(¯sd) 0.79 0.159 (3.476±0.006)×10−15
B0
d(¯bd) 1.28 0.216 (3.337±0.033)×10−13
D0(¯cu) 0.82 0.165 (0.95±0.37)×10−14 Table 2: Data associated with the neutral mesonsK0,B0
dandD0. Values are obtained
from [34, 35].
mass-splitting ofF0−F0 resulting from the exchange of neutral Higgs bosons can be parametrized as MF∆MF =BF(ξijf)2 cos2α′ SF m2 h0 + sin2α′ SF m2 H0 − PF m2 A0 (131) where SF = BFfF2MF2 6 1 + M2 F (mfi +mfj)2 ! (132) PF = − BFfF2MF2 6 1 + 11M2 F (mfi +mfj)2 ! (133) andij =ds, dbanducforK0, B0
d andD0 respectively. BF constants are recalibration
factors for having used the vacuum insertion approximation, and fF are the decay
constants. See Table 2 for their values. The formulae of eq. (131) with these constants should give computations to accuracy within factors ofO(1). The experimental values for ∆MF are given in Table 2.
It is straightforward to use the results of the theory computation above and the experimental limits of Table 2 to place limits on how large ξij can be [33, 36]. These
limits depend on many factors, including α′ and the three different Higgs boson masses. For simplicity, let us assume that all Higgs mass are equal to the common value mHiggs and define
˜ ξijf ≡ξijf 120 GeV mHiggs 2 . (134)
The Standard Model prediction for ∆MB0
d, for example, is ∆M
SM B0
d = (4.5±1.0)×
10−13 GeV [34]. This gives a sense for the computational uncertainties involved. Therefore, let us be simple-minded and conservative here to illustrate the important point that ξijf’s need to be small. Let’s require that the Higgs boson contributions
¯b d ¯ d b h/H/A ¯b d ¯ d b W W u/c/t u/c/t ξd bd ξbdd† (a) (b)
Figure 4: Flavor changing neutral current contributions to B0
d−B¯d0 mixing from (a)
Higgs exchange diagrams in arbitrary two-Higgs doublet model, and (b) Standard Model gauge contributions. Note that the Standard Model diagrams are one-loop whereas the competing Higgs exchange is tree-level. Experiment is consistent with Standard Model results, which implies severe constraints on the Higgs flavor-changing neutral current couplings ξijf ≪1.
for the B0
d mass splitting is bounded by ∆MB0
d < 10
−12GeV. This translates into a bound of ˜ξd
db <∼10−4, which is quite small. Similar results follow for the other
flavor-changing ξijf couplings, and it is hard to imagine that random choices for the entries would satisfy the constraints.
There is a general class of solutions to this problem while admitting the existence of extra Higgs bosons in the spectrum. Tree-level FCNCs do not arise if Higgs boson interactions with the fermions take the form
∆Lf =yijdQ¯iFu({Φk})djR+yuijQ¯iFd({Φk})ujR+yijeL¯iFe({Φk})ejR+c.c. (135)
where Fu,d,e({Φk}) are functions of Higgs fields {Φk}, constrained only by the
re-quirements that they are independent of the fermionic flavor indices i, j and that Fu
transform like an SU(2)L doublet with hypercharge −1/2, and Fd and Fe transform
like SU(2)L doublets with hypercharge 1/2.
The generalized form of eq. (135) subsumes many ideas already present in the literature. For example, the Standard Model Higgs sector isFu =HSMc andFd=Fe=
HSM. The Type II [37] two-Higgs doublet model [22] is Fu =Hu and Fd=Fe =Hd.
The type I two-Higgs doublet model [22] is Fu = Φ1 and Fd = Fe = Φ∗1 with an additional Φ2 that does not couple to fermions. The leptophilic Higgs model of ref. [38] is Fu =φ∗q, Fd =φq and Fe =φl.
There are an infinite var
